Court Can Also Suo Motu Dismiss Suit On The Basis Of Admissions Made Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that Order XII Rule 6 CPC authorises the Court to not only pass a Decree regarding admitted claim, but also to dismiss the Suit.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) ,the Courts, on its own motion, can also dismiss the suits based on admissions made.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed an Appeal and upheld the Decree of the Single Judge, dismissing a Partition Suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan enunciated, “Recently, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya Naryan Jaiswal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9975 of 2025 dated 07th April, 2025 has upheld the view of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in ITDC Limited vs. Chander Pal Sood and Son, (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB) that Order XII Rule 6 CPC gives a very wide discretion to the Court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit and that too on its own motion i.e. without any application being filed by any party.”
The Bench further reiterated that Order XII Rule 6 CPC authorises the Court to not only pass a Decree regarding admitted claim, but also to dismiss the Suit.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, P.S. Patwalia, and Advocate Narendra Prabhakar appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A Suit was filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) for partition, injunction, and accounts involving five properties held by the Appellant-Plaintiff’s father – Late Major General Budh Singh against the legal heirs of Anup Singh i.e. brother of Appellant-Plaintiff and her sister, Respondent No. 6, who was supporting the case of the Appellant.
After completion of pleadings when the Partition Suit was listed for framing of issues, the Single Judge passed a decree of dismissal of the Suit. The Appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench, with liberty to approach the competent Court at Sonepat, Haryana for partition of land situated in Barota. Challenging this, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “… this Court is of the view that the submission that the learned Single Judge could have dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC alone and not under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and that too without any application being filed by the Respondents, is untenable in law.”
The Court said that while the Decrees in Suits II, III and IV were declaratory decrees, yet they were grounded on the consensus (between the parties) that the properties stood partitioned amongst the family members.
“This Court says so, not only, on the basis of admission by Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 in the plaint filed in Suit I, but also because without a partition inter se between the parties, the declaratory decrees could not have been passed”, it added.
The Court also reiterated that partition need not be effected in any particular/standard format and hence, the decrees passed in Suits II, III and IV amount to a recognition and acceptance of the fact of partition between the parties prior to December 20, 2004.
“Also, Suit IV was premised on the basis that Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 have no right in the properties of their father- Late Major General Budh Singh as partition of HUF of Late Major General Budh Singh and HUF of Anup Singh had already taken place. It was in pursuance to the said pleadings that a decree of partition of Anand Niketan house was passed and the said house in its entirety was partitioned between Anup Singh and his two sons”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title- Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 632)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, Advocates Shubhankar Sengupta, Aarush Bhatia, and Anindita Mitra.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, P.S. Patwalia, AORs Neelam Singh, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Gopal Jha, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Advocates Narendra Prabhakar, Sameer Singh, Alok Sangwan, Vani Vyas, Prakhar Singh, Narendra Prabhakar, Nimish Arjaria, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Aman Vachher, Dhiraj, Ashutosh Dubey, Anshu Vachher, Abhiti Vachher, Akshat Vachher, Nandni Sharma, Amit Kumar, Jasvinder Choudhary, Alok Sangwan, Sameer Rohatgi, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Shikhar Narwal, Shehla Chaudhary, Mohd. Anas Chaudhary, Mohd. Sharyab Ali, and Kartikey Singh.
